Judith Colenback Savage: Under our system, no right to question jury’s verdict

By Judith Colenback Savage

Friday

Dec 27, 2013 at 12:01 AM

In commenting on the jury’s verdicts of acquittal in the recent bribery and conspiracy case of State v. Donna Uhlmann and Jamaal Dublin, The Journal’s Nov. 19 editorial (“A painful, necessary trial”) stated:...

In commenting on the jury’s verdicts of acquittal in the recent bribery and conspiracy case of State v. Donna Uhlmann and Jamaal Dublin, The Journal’s Nov. 19 editorial (“A painful, necessary trial”) stated: “The evidence seemed to call for a guilty verdict.”

Translation: the jury got it wrong. This statement sends the wrong message to the jurors in this case as well as those citizens who may be called upon to serve as jurors in future cases of moment. It is not for us to judge those who judged.

Twelve people listened to the evidence in the case for weeks and deliberated over three days to reach their verdict. These jurors presumably brought to the table differing views of that evidence. People’s distinct life experiences give them disparate lenses through which to view and filter evidence. Indeed, that is the enduring legacy of our jury system. It treats all 12 members of the jury, regardless of their education, life’s work and life experiences, as equals in doing justice.

Our Founders saw the wisdom of this system when they embedded the concept of trial by jury in our state and federal constitutions. As Thomas Jefferson wrote to Thomas Paine in 1789: “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” If you stand in front of the bench in the very courtroom where this case was tried and look up toward the ceiling, you will see a stunning anchor carved into the woodwork by native Rhode Island artisans a century ago. It was their way of reminding us of the wisdom of Jefferson and the importance of trial by jury.

In this case, the jurors reached a unanimous verdict, as required by Rhode Island law. As tough as that process may have been — especially where no member of the jury could have failed to appreciate the stakes for each of the parties — the jurors did not throw up their collective hands and say that they could not agree. There was no hung jury. They decided that the two defendants were not guilty of all charges — meaning not that they found these defendants innocent (as you state), but that the state did not prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In unanimity, they signaled that each of them — all 12 of them — believed in that verdict.

The only way to evaluate evidence is to sit in the courtroom, day after day, during trial and listen to every word. Evidence matters. When the press invites us to comment on the wisdom of a jury verdict when we have not been there to listen to the evidence, it devalues the role of the jury and its decision. Over time, questioning juries’ verdicts, particularly in high profile cases, has a corrosive effect that makes us less trusting of this essential bulwark of our liberty.

Maybe people who did listen to the evidence in this case think that this jury got it wrong. But none of those people were selected by the parties to sit on the jury. None of them deliberated with the jury, listening to the views of others who may have seen the evidence differently. As a result, none of those people can say that their views, even if fixed at the outset, would have remained unchanged had they deliberated with the other members of the jury.

And that is the point. What others think of the jury verdict in this case is irrelevant. Under our justice system, none of us has the right to suggest that this jury got it wrong; we likewise have no right to say that the jury got it right.

As state prosecutors so aptly recognized following the acquittal, even in the midst of its understandable disappointment, it was a verdict that must be respected. To tell the jurors in this case that they should have convicted the defendant, even when their view of the evidence compelled an acquittal, is to deny their decision the respect commanded by our Constitution. It is to tell them that their jury service, undoubtedly performed with diligence, courage and at great personal sacrifice, did not really matter. It is to tell future jurors that they are free to render any verdict that they believe is correct, but only if it squares with popular opinion or the views of others.

That is a dangerous message. It could have the untoward effect of discouraging future jurors, particularly in highly publicized cases, from rendering the verdict that they believe is fair and conscientious, in accordance with the law and the evidence. I am not so ready to jettison the wisdom of Jefferson or the fundamental right to trial by jury enshrined in our Constitution.